Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89466 Case Number: LCR12602 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ERICTRON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for disturbance payment in respect of relocation.
Recommendation:
5. 1. Having considered the submissions from both parties the
Court finds no basis for recommending concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89466 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12602
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ERICTRON LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for disturbance payment in respect of
relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company previously operated as a subsidiary of L.M.
Ericsson Limited which was involved primarily in the manufacture
of telecommunications equipment at Cornamaddy, Athlone. In 1987
as part of a corporate policy decision and as the result of a
change in business requirements the manufacturing capacity of the
plant was incorporated as a separate Company (Erictron Ltd). Both
companies operated side by side at Cornamaddy. Within the past
few years L.M. Ericsson Ltd has expanded its software division at
Cornamaddy, staff numbers have increased and extra space was
required at the site. In 1988 the Management of Erictron Ltd took
a decision to relocate its plant at Garrycastle approximately 2
miles away in order to be able to continue in production.
Approximately 160 workers are concerned in the move and the Union
served a claim for disturbance payment on the Company. The claim
was rejected in principle by the Company. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue which was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 21st April, 1989. A
conciliation conference was held on the 20th June, 1989 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 26th June, 1989.
A Court hearing was held on the 5th October, 1989 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in a financial position to afford the
claim. It is involved in a capital expenditure programme
involving millions of pounds over the next few years. The
claim is modest (#300) per person) when set against the
background of the Company's willingness to commit vast
resources to this venture.
2. The workers concerned supported and co-operated with the
Company in ensuring the success of the move which will be
enhanced by this payment. Over one hundred workers have
successfully made the transition to the Garrycastle site.
This emphasises the loyalty and discipline of the workforce.
3. Some of the employees concerned will now have to travel
longer distances at extra cost. As there is no public
transport system in Athlone many workers will have to rely on
private transport. This will involve extra fuel costs plus
wear and tear on vehicles.
4. The previous site was close to all the other significant
manufacturing units in the area and many of the workers
concerned were able to avail of lifts from others. All these
arrangements will now be disrupted and much greater
inconvenience will result. This will particularly affect the
shift workers in the Company. Disturbance payments have been
recommended in the past in similar situations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move is a key part of the Company's survival strategy.
It was given no option but to move if it was to continue in
business. This fact was evident to the Union and was
explained at length by Management at local discussions.
2. The new site, as well as retaining all the facilities
present at the old site (subsidised canteen, medical centre
etc) has provided the opportunity for many improvements e.g. a
vastly improved air conditioning system, a higher level of
natural lighting, as well as a better functional layout. The
physical move has cost the Company #1 million, and this has
not added any new manufacturing capacity.
3. The Company has consulted in detail at all stages with the
workers concerned. Considerable effort has been made to
minimise disturbance to employees and to production. This
process has ensured that all facilities in the new site are
present and functional and that the workers were given an
active part in seeing that this is so.
4. Transportation arrangements which operate for the
Cornamaddy site have been extended to the new location.
In addition transport has been provided for travel between
sites.
5. The Company was formerly a cost centre within a large
multinational, however, it now has to operate as a profitable
Company in its own right, and has to find its own development.
This means that the Company's cost structure is extremely
tight. Management has therefore concentrated on the provision
of production and employee facilities and has not made
provision for any disturbance claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. 1. Having considered the submissions from both parties the
Court finds no basis for recommending concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
19th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.